S. 968, the PROTECT IP Act.

[White Eagle]

I'm all for protecting intellectual property, but I have the feeling this will give the Government to look into all kinds of websites and close them down. I mean websites that do not infringe. Like JUB, yall are very good about protecting copyrights. I know, my posts have been altered because I don't look far enough to see copyrighted stuff. That''s good.
But what happens if they close JUB because of porn?

 

[construct]

I'm all for protecting intellectual property, but I have the feeling this will give the Government to look into all kinds of websites and close them down. I mean websites that do not infringe. Like JUB, yall are very good about protecting copyrights. I know, my posts have been altered because I don't look far enough to see copyrighted stuff. That''s good.
But what happens if they close JUB because of porn?

Well, the government or anybody else can look into JUB anytime they want to. It's a public site. You don't have to be signed in to read it. I don't guess you have to be signed in to see the clips.

They're not going to close JUB because of porn.

 

[Kulindahr]

I'm all for protecting intellectual property, but I have the feeling this will give the Government to look into all kinds of websites and close them down. I mean websites that do not infringe. Like JUB, yall are very good about protecting copyrights. I know, my posts have been altered because I don't look far enough to see copyrighted stuff. That''s good.
But what happens if they close JUB because of porn?

They're more likely to tax JUB becuase of porn than shut it down.

But this is indeed the danger: the law will hand the government a structure with the capability of doing what China does, i.e. selectively block or allow various web sites. Given the government's agility in making outright criminal acts by its minions appear righteous, this is not something they should be handed.

 

[White Eagle]

Well, I guess I'll just stick around and see what happens.

 

[mygaybuffet]

I knew nothing about this bill until White Eagle called it to my attention. The more I look at the bill, the more I think about it, the more I like it.

Now why is it an atrocity?

It's an atrocity because it will end free speech and knowledge as we know it online. Look at how the government has abused and misused the Patriot Act which is supposed to protect the homeland but has done everything but that. Can you imagine this power in the hands of a Republican administration?!

Who is the government to tell us what websites we can or cannot go to?!

 

[Kulindahr]

It's an atrocity because it will end free speech and knowledge as we know it online. Look at how the government has abused and misused the Patriot Act which is supposed to protect the homeland but has done everything but that. Can you imagine this power in the hands of a Republican administration?!

Who is the government to tell us what websites we can or cannot go to?!

Yes. People who like it are operating under the illusion that it will be used only for what it says it's for... by the government.

 

[LittleDove]

(Of course, the bill would apply to web purveyors of knock-off Bulova watches and Gucci handbags, too, dontcha know.)

If you leave off the 'knock-off' portion of your post and replace it with legitimate, you'll probably have a good idea of how this law is going to be used: just like DMCA, to stiffle competition, by issuing take-down notices to sellers of licit, legitimate, lawful items which are being sold at a price which undercuts the price which the manufacturer, like Gucci or Disney, want their products to sell at.

If I've read the law right, it makes big companies even more powerful. Now, they will not only be able to get their competitor's offerings off the market, they'll also be able to turn around and be able to block any funds from reaching those competitors, too.

 

[Kulindahr]

If you leave off the 'knock-off' portion of your post and replace it with legitimate, you'll probably have a good idea of how this law is going to be used: just like DMCA, to stiffle competition, by issuing take-down notices to sellers of licit, legitimate, lawful items which are being sold at a price which undercuts the price which the manufacturer, like Gucci or Disney, want their products to sell at.

If I've read the law right, it makes big companies even more powerful. Now, they will not only be able to get their competitor's offerings off the market, they'll also be able to turn around and be able to block any funds from reaching those competitors, too.

And if anyone thinks the government isn't going to yield to the wishes of the giant corporations which get politicians elected... they're welcome to go join Peter Pan fighting the pirates.

 

[construct]

As I read it, the law would require at least a temporary injunction which means at least constructive notice and the likelihood of winning the suit and a demonstration of irreparable harm. That's a fairly high bar that the plaintiff would have to meet.

And the law has nothing to do with restricting what anyone can read. It has to do only with limiting the modes whereby fraudulent goods can be marketed.

I seriously think there's a lot of Chicken-Little squawking going on about this bill.

Now if someone can show me a technological reason to oppose it or how I have misunderstood the law or its application, he might convince me that it at least needs work. Otherwise, I see it as a small step towards ridding the marketplace of fraudulent goods. It functions to protect not only holders of intellectual property but also consumers of their goods. This is progress toward a goal that I have been wanting for a long, long time.

 

[RobinGoodfellow]

It's an atrocity because it will end free speech and knowledge as we know it online. Look at how the government has abused and misused the Patriot Act which is supposed to protect the homeland but has done everything but that. Can you imagine this power in the hands of a Republican administration?!

I'll grant you the Patriot Act has been abused since Day One, but can you really say it was unexpected? On the other hand, I'm not really seeing how an anti-piracy bill equates to censorship. After all, it's not preventing anyone from looking at a legitimate site or obtaining the item from a legal source; it is merely putting a block on sites that prevent the legitimate owner from reaping the profits of his work. Sure, you're looking at the Big Corps, but look at it from the position of the small creator...

Who is the government to tell us what websites we can or cannot go to?!

And how exactly is this bill going to do so? It's only blocking sites that are going things illegally. Sites that are doing business legitimately have nothing to fear...

RG